Questioned v. Detained - Macleans.ca
 

Questioned v. Detained


 

The Chief of Defence Staff attempts to split the difference.

The affidavit of Col. Steve Noonan is here. The relevant portion would seem to be paragraph 56. There was one incident in which the CF took custody of detainee who had been turned over to the local ANP by the CF. In this case, the CF learned that the detainee had been beaten by the local ANP. When they learned of this, they approached the local ANP and requested that the detainee be given to them. The ANP complied and the CF subsequently transferred the detainee to the Provincial ANP.

The field notes of a soldier reporting the incident, as discovered by the Globe, apparently read as follows. Local ANP elements were in possession of a PUC detained by CDA troops and subsequently transferred to ANP custody.

The incident is also referenced during the cross-examination of General Joseph Deschamps during Federal Court proceedings.


 

Questioned v. Detained

  1. Looks like Critical Reasoning called it right.

    • Yes, he did !

    • {takes a bow}

  2. Reminds of some great hair splitting from the days of yore: What is the definition of "is", please.

  3. Encore! Bravo! Encore!

  4. Resign.

  5. Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton's definition of what is and is not sex. Who are these people kidding?

  6. General Walter Natynczyk needs to explain how someone who was not detained by CAF came to be wearing CAF "flex cuffs." And by the way, why doesn't he stand by and support the account made by "his troops?"

    After Mackay resigns, his replacement needs to fire Natynczyk who has compromised himself and the men and women under him, by participating in this partisan cover up.

  7. Millions of Canadians

  8. Incidentally, if Mackay has to resign for misleading the House, so too does Baird. Who was probably the genius who insisted on this "strategy" in the first place.

  9. Before you all mount up the lynch mob…

    As unpopular as this comment might be, definitions do matter. They would matter in a prosecution before the ICC, and they would matter in a public inquiry.

    What the CF witnessed was likely cruel and inhumane treatment, not torture:

    http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/69M

  10. Legally, yes it does matter and the difference could save some officials from a negative judgement.

    Morally though, as Seanstock said, Canada does not condone torture full stop.

    I'm not going to assume what matters most to you but the lynch mob as you describe is guided by their moral sense. So when two government officials shrug their shoulders and blame the bureaucracy when we ask how the Canadian forces let even a single incident of torture slide, the lynch mob feels wronged.

  11. Not a defence for MacKay, mind you, but perhaps the General…